Fulmar in 1941/42/43: feasible and/or plausible upgrades?

[RCAFson]

That's an over-simplification of the American position because it ignores the use of the F8F as a pure fighter and the obsolescence of the dive bomber as a concept. And note that the Americans were not interested in having a two-seat single-engine strike fighter because they chose to utilise the F4U complemented and later supplanted by the AD Skyraider in the strike role. Until the late 1950s American carrier-borne fighters were rarely two-seaters. It could be argued that even in the 21st century the USN continues to rely on single-seat multi-role strike aircraft in the form of the F/A-18E series which, incidentally, partly replaced the two-seat F-14.

It's not an over simplification at all, because the USN put this doctrinal change into practice. The F8F was a response to the need for a fast climbing fighter to meet a similar development in the IJN (which didn't materialize ) and later as an anti-kamikaze fighter, but the last variants of the multi-role F4U had similar performance. The Seafire had a somewhat similar rationale, but it was Luftwaffe FBs that drove it's development.

Where did you get this idea? There was a requirement for a turret fighter under N. 9/39 - which resulted in the useless Blackburn Roc. The FAA also wanted a single-seat fighter and were offered a Sea-Spitfire in 1938, plus there were plans for a single seat fighter under N.11/40, which eventually resulted in the Blackburn Firebrand - an aircraft which only became a "strike fighter" because it was useless at anything else; the plans for a Sea-Spitfire with folding wings came to naught because, as mentioned elsewhere, Dick Fairey absolutely refused to allow his factories to build anything other than Fairey designs.

Simple, there was only two planned possibilities for folding wing carrier aircraft to come into service in 1942 and that was the Firefly and Barracuda - nothing else was even close to fruition.

There is absolutely no evidence that a Firefly/Barracuda combination would have been superior to the IJN or USN - that's an assumption on your part.

What? Haven't been reading this thread? The Firefly was greatly superior to the F4F-4 and would have been a very potent CV borne air defence fighter in 1942 with unrivalled firepower and strike capability. The Barracuda could carry a heavier bomb load than either the Val or SBD and outperformed the TBD and Kate as well.

he concept of continuing with a two-seat fighter in 1942 was wasteful of resources when it had been proven that single-seat, single engine fighters were more than useful, and it should be noted that no more specifications were issued for two-seat naval fighters after 1940.

The Firefly still performed very useful service as a strike/escort fighter in 1944/5 and the FAA continued it's development long after WW2 ended.

The Firefly would have been even better and more useful in 1942 as a smaller aircraft without the back seat - it might have even truly been a winner. Useful in 1944/45, sure but essential, no.

The Admiralty was short of crystal balls in 1939, but Firefly performance was not hampered by its two seat requirements; both the F6F and F4U were in the same weight class as was the Typhoon. Any naval fighter with the same requirements for range, firepower and strike capability will weigh about the same, and IMHO, the problem stemmed from the RAF having priority for aircraft and engine development.

 

[Greyman]

Aside from the second crewman, what could a Firefly could do that a Corsair couldn't do better?

 

[Juha]

... The development of both the Firefly and Barracuda were delayed but if they had entered service as planned then instead of the interim Fulmar/Abacore the FAA would have fielded the Firefly/Barracuda as their sole carrier borne aircraft, and in 1942 this combination generally outperformed the IJN/USN equivalents and in the Fulmar/Albacore actually compared well with foreign carrier borne aircraft...:

So are you claiming that Fulmar/Albacore compared well with Zero/Kate/Val?

 

[Aozora]

It's not an over simplification at all, because the USN put this doctrinal change into practice. The F8F was a response to the need for a fast climbing fighter to meet a similar development in the IJN (which didn't materialize ) and later as an anti-kamikaze fighter, but the last variants of the multi-role F4U had similar performance. The Seafire had a somewhat similar rationale, but it was Luftwaffe FBs that drove it's development.

Evidence please that the USN ever contemplated replacing single seat fighters with multi-seat, multi-purpose designs.

Simple, there was only two planned possibilities for folding wing carrier aircraft to come into service in 1942 and that was the Firefly and Barracuda - nothing else was even close to fruition.

That's because because Fairey absolutely refused to have anything to do with helping develop or build a folding wing Sea-Spitfire in 1938! One of the PRIME reasons single-seat fighter development was retarded for the FAA was because of Fairey's refusal to allow such development to take place.

The Admiralty was short of crystal balls in 1939, but Firefly performance was not hampered by its two seat requirements; both the F6F and F4U were in the same weight class as was the Typhoon. Any naval fighter with the same requirements for range, firepower and strike capability will weigh about the same, and IMHO, the problem stemmed from the RAF having priority for aircraft and engine development.

Really? - top speed of Griffon engine Firefly I in 1944 was 316 mph at 14,000; 5 min 45 sec to 10,000 ft:
top speed of Griffon engine Seafire XV was 392 mph; climb rate = 4,600 ft/min:
F6F-3 = 391 mph; 3,650 ft/min:
F4U = 416 mph; 3,210 ft/min:
Typhoon = 413 mph; 6 min to 15,000 ft

there was a huge performance penalty paid for having an extra seat.

 

[Shortround6]

It's not an over simplification at all, because the USN put this doctrinal change into practice. The F8F was a response to the need for a fast climbing fighter to meet a similar development in the IJN

Part of the F8F requirement was a NEW plane to operate of small carriers, ie, a F4F/FM-2 replacement.

What? Haven't been reading this thread? The Firefly was greatly superior to the F4F-4 and would have been a very potent CV borne air defence fighter in 1942 with unrivalled firepower and strike capability.

Not really in the 1942 version unless you bring the Griffon even more forward in timing. Like using at least the MK XII Griffon in 1942 instead of the IIB. A fight at 25000 ft might have been rather interesting. The F4F might have double the climb rate of a Firefly MK I. At that altitude. Climb of the MK I Firefly according to one source was 5 min 45 seconds to 10,000ft which is within a few seconds of what the F4F-4 was supposed to to do.

The Firefly does have a large edge in firepower and strike capability though.

The Barracuda could carry a heavier bomb load than either the Val or SBD and outperformed the TBD and Kate as well.

No kidding??? It should, it had DOUBLE the power of a TBD (even with the low powered Griffon), the last of which rolled out the factory door back in 1938 if not before. Kates had about 1000hp even in the 2nd model.

You want to move up the service introductions of aircraft?

Fairey Firefly " Z1826 made its maiden flight on 22 December 1941, Z1827 on 4 June 1942 and Z1828 on 26 August 1942"

Curtiss SB2C, "first prototype made its maiden flight on 18 December 1940,....The revised prototype flew again on 20 October 1941........Large-scale production had already been ordered on 29 November 1940"

Granted the Curtiss SB2C was one of the big "turkeys" of WW II but it did go into operational service about ONE month after the Firefly.

And the Grumman Avenger, first flown on 7 August 1941, was at Midway in small numbers in June of 1942. About the same day the second prototype Firefly flew. Granted it was about useless as a fighter but how about comparing the Firefly to fighters and bombers of IT'S generation rather than planes that were one or two generations earlier. First flight of a TBD Devastator was just about exactly (2 days different) one year later than the first flight of a Fairey Swordfish.

The Firefly still performed very useful service as a strike/escort fighter in 1944/5 and the FAA continued it's development long after WW2 ended.

Yes it did but then both the US and the RN used the Avenger for a number of roles post war that it was not used for during the war, and in RN and Canadian service the Avenger replaced both the Barracuda and the Firefly. So the continued development of the Firefly proves what?

And for what the FAA was really thinking it needed for a "fighter" in late 1943/44 " The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, first flew at Langley, Berkshire, on 21 February 1945, powered by a Centaurus XII engine"
Work had started in 1943.

The Admiralty was short of crystal balls in 1939, but Firefly performance was not hampered by its two seat requirements; both the F6F and F4U were in the same weight class as was the Typhoon. Any naval fighter with the same requirements for range, firepower and strike capability will weigh about the same, and IMHO, the problem stemmed from the RAF having priority for aircraft and engine development.

Well something was going on because a MK 4 Firefly..... " Fairey produced a true prototype, which made its maiden flight on 25 May 1945 (at this stage it had the standard Mk I wings).........A second prototype made its maiden flight on 21 February 1946, and the first production aircraft took to the airs on 25 May 1946."......Would get eaten for lunch by a 1943 Spec F4U-1 WITHOUT water injection.

 

[RCAFson]

So are you claiming that Fulmar/Albacore compared well with Zero/Kate/Val?

The Fulmar/Albacore entered service in 1940. In 1940 they compared well with foreign contemporary carrier aircraft.
The Firefly/Barracuda was intended to replace both by 1942.

Neither the Val or SBD was in service in any numbers until 1941, ditto for the F4F and Zero, and the first folding wing version of the F4F didn't enter service until 1942.

Edit- see post 120 - I left out the year 1940 in that post!

 

[RCAFson]

Evidence please that the USN ever contemplated replacing single seat fighters with multi-seat, multi-purpose designs.

As I have explained technical developments allowed a SS CV borne fighter to have multi-roles, and both the F6F and especially F4U were combination fighter/strike fighter and they were even capable of acting as TBs, but they were less useful in the recon role.

That's because because Fairey absolutely refused to have anything to do with helping develop or build a folding wing Sea-Spitfire in 1938! One of the PRIME reasons single-seat fighter development was retarded for the FAA was because of Fairey's refusal to allow such development to take place.

Last time I look Fairey Aviation was NOT in charge of the Admiralty and the RN brass had lots of other potential contractors to provide them with a Seafire. Fairey's argument for the Fulmar/Firefly was a persuasive one but if the Admiralty had told Fairey to build the Seafire or receive no contracts what could Fairey have done - declare bankruptcy to spite the admiralty?

Really? - top speed of Griffon engine Firefly I in 1944 was 316 mph at 14,000; 5 min 45 sec to 10,000 ft:
top speed of Griffon engine Seafire XV was 392 mph; climb rate = 4,600 ft/min:
F6F-3 = 391 mph; 3,650 ft/min:
F4U = 416 mph; 3,210 ft/min:
Typhoon = 413 mph; 6 min to 15,000 ft

there was a huge performance penalty paid for having an extra seat.

First off, the Firefly was planned for 1942 (how many times to I have to say this?) and in 1942 it would have been more than competitive. However, in 1944 it needed a lot more HP to remain competitive. However, and I'll say this again, the 2nd seat didn't create a performance penalty, as it was the requirement for large internal fuel capacity and a 2000lb bomb load that required a large aircraft, and the weight and external dimensions of the Firefly were very similar to other naval fighters with the same internal fuel capacity, firepower and bomb load. The Firefly did fly a variety of missions in 44/45 and generally did quite well.

 

[Juha]

The Fulmar/Albacore entered service in 1940. In 1940 they compared well with foreign contemporary carrier aircraft.
The Firefly/Barracuda was intended to replace both by 1942.

Neither the Val or SBD was in service in any numbers until 1941, ditto for the F4F and Zero, and the first folding wing version of the F4F didn't enter service until 1942.

The first kill of a Zero pilot was achieved in Sept 40. Kate was also in service in 1940, Val arrived a bit later.

 

[RCAFson]

Part of the F8F requirement was a NEW plane to operate of small carriers, ie, a F4F/FM-2 replacement.

Yes, but that's not was pushed it's development, especially when the Kamikaze threat appeared.

Not really in the 1942 version unless you bring the Griffon even more forward in timing. Like using at least the MK XII Griffon in 1942 instead of the IIB. A fight at 25000 ft might have been rather interesting. The F4F might have double the climb rate of a Firefly MK I. At that altitude. Climb of the MK I Firefly according to one source was 5 min 45 seconds to 10,000ft which is within a few seconds of what the F4F-4 was supposed to to do.

The Firefly does have a large edge in firepower and strike capability though.

The Firefly F1 could climb to 20k ft in 12.4 minutes with normal climb power versus 12.6 minutes for the F4F-4 with military power. However naval combat typically took place well under 20k ft, and the Firefly has the edge here

No kidding??? It should, it had DOUBLE the power of a TBD (even with the low powered Griffon), the last of which rolled out the factory door back in 1938 if not before. Kates had about 1000hp even in the 2nd model.

You want to move up the service introductions of aircraft?

Fairey Firefly " Z1826 made its maiden flight on 22 December 1941, Z1827 on 4 June 1942 and Z1828 on 26 August 1942"

Curtiss SB2C, "first prototype made its maiden flight on 18 December 1940,....The revised prototype flew again on 20 October 1941........Large-scale production had already been ordered on 29 November 1940"

Granted the Curtiss SB2C was one of the big "turkeys" of WW II but it did go into operational service about ONE month after the Firefly.

And the Grumman Avenger, first flown on 7 August 1941, was at Midway in small numbers in June of 1942. About the same day the second prototype Firefly flew. Granted it was about useless as a fighter but how about comparing the Firefly to fighters and bombers of IT'S generation rather than planes that were one or two generations earlier. First flight of a TBD Devastator was just about exactly (2 days different) one year later than the first flight of a Fairey Swordfish.

Again, we have discussed the fact that FAA development priority took a huge hit due the FofF and BofB, so the fact the Fairey couldn't meet it's planned timetable is no surprise, but the fact is that the Firefly/Barracuda would have been a potent combo in 1942, if their planned develop and production schedule could have been met.

Yes it did but then both the US and the RN used the Avenger for a number of roles post war that it was not used for during the war, and in RN and Canadian service the Avenger replaced both the Barracuda and the Firefly. So the continued development of the Firefly proves what?

It proves that the Firefly concept was a valid one, and it produced a high performance strike fighter that went on to see front line combat in Korea.

And for what the FAA was really thinking it needed for a "fighter" in late 1943/44 " The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, first flew at Langley, Berkshire, on 21 February 1945, powered by a Centaurus XII engine"
Work had started in 1943.

Yeah, 1943.

Well something was going on because a MK 4 Firefly..... " Fairey produced a true prototype, which made its maiden flight on 25 May 1945 (at this stage it had the standard Mk I wings).........A second prototype made its maiden flight on 21 February 1946, and the first production aircraft took to the airs on 25 May 1946."......Would get eaten for lunch by a 1943 Spec F4U-1 WITHOUT water injection.

No, the "ensign eliminator" was faster, but not a better CV based aircraft.

 

[Juha]

...No, the "ensign eliminator" was faster, but not a better CV based aircraft.

Why not FAA just kep t Sea Gladiators, they turned even better than Firefly, after all turning was the only aspect in which Firefly beat Corsair in aerial combat besides somewhat better firepower. But Firefly was slow and lazy climber when it arrived.

 

[nuuumannn]

Very interesting RCAFson. Yes, you're right, the Firebrand was conceived as a fleet base defence interceptor, but with the ability to operate successfully from carriers - largely for transportation, too. Once the urgency for single-seat fighters increased, the need for ship baesd single-seat fighters grew, however, as you well know.

but this doesn't alter the fundamental priority placed on the two seat fighter.

Yes, it does. Both the Fulmar and the Firefly evolved from pre-war needs; there's no evidence at all that a more 'fundamental' priority was placed on them over what wartime needs dictated. Once the war got into swing, the FAA realised that its pre-war policies of relying on heavy AA for ship defence was flawed and the lack of single-seat fighters became plainly evident, particularly in the Mediterranean. Premature entry into the war was not the issue facing the FAA - the issue was an inability to recognise that technology and the nature of modern warfare had overtaken its best laid plans in pre-war peacetime. In the FAA's defence, this wasn't just a situation facing them, but the British armed forces in general. There was no preparation for opposing Blitzkrieg tactics that the British army encountered in France - even then, the Germans surprised themselves at how fast they managed to achieve what they did. Pre-war aircraft concepts such as the bomber-transport, turret-fighter and single-engine day bomber found little place in modern warfare and it took time and experience for the Air Staff to realise this. But I digress.

The development of both the Firefly and Barracuda were delayed but if they had entered service as planned then instead of the interim Fulmar/Abacore the FAA would have fielded the Firefly/Barracuda as their sole carrier borne aircraft, and in 1942 this combination generally outperformed the IJN/USN equivalents and in the Fulmar/Albacore actually compared well with foreign carrier borne aircraft.

You are partly right regarding pre-war policy and the request for Sea Spitfires in 1940 was as an interim until the N.5/40 replacement for the Fulmar, the Firefly entered service, but the FAA's position on an insistence on multi-role aircraft was outdated and did not take into account the fact that during wartime its carriers would be operating in areas where they would be exposed to land based single-seat fighters and fast bombers, such as the Bf 109, Bf 110 and Ju 88, all of which could outpace and outnumber the FAA's meagre resources and frequently did.

You have to remember that at the outbreak of war, the FAA was equipped with obsolescent aircraft by comparison to other carrier armed countries. Apart from the Skua, every other carrier type in the FAA was a biplane. By 1941 the Japanese did not have a single biplane type operating in a front line role on board their carriers. The decision to configure the Swordfish replacement as a biplane was again based on pre-war practise and did not take into account advances in technology abroad, nor the future needs of the FAA as evolving technology forced warfare to change. Just because the FAA did it that way, does not mean that was the most efficient way of doing things. Wartime experience taught the Admiralty that. Your statement that the Fulmar/Albacore compared well with foreign aircraft is pure nonsense. Both types were obsolescent when they entered service compared to their contemporaries; as has been demonstrated, the Fulmar was too slow as a fighter and the Nakajima B5N was widely regarded as the most advanced carrier based torpedo bomber when it entered service.

You forget that the air war in the Pacific was fought across enormous distances, where the range of the Fulmar and Firefly were at a distinct advantage, but neither the US Navy, nor the IJN had two-seat fighters; there was just no need for them. In late 1941, early 1942, the IJN were carrying out the longest ranged naval air strikes in history in single-seat monoplane fighters and modern all-metal single-engined monoplane bombers.

If the Firefly had been coming into service in 1942 then both the HSH and Martlet would have been superfluous, as neither (especially the Martlet) has enough of a performance/range or firepower edge over the Firefly to make them worthwhile.

Again, this is based on pre-war doctrine, which was outmoded and had little real place in modern carrier warfare as it unfolded in WW2. If you were in a senior place in the Admiralty in WW2, you might have been surprised to find yourself in the same position the Admiralty found itself, when confronted with the fact that you had not invested properly in a decent modern single-seat carrier based fighter and continued with outdated concepts of warfare.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, but that's not was pushed it's development, especially when the Kamikaze threat appeared.

Which is it, stop the Kamikaze threat or counter a fast climbing Japanese fighter?

"Work on the Grumman G-58 Bearcat began in 1943 with the specifications calling for an aircraft able to operate from the smallest carrier, primarily in the interceptor role."

There were no Kamikazes in 1943.

"One source claims that the first kamikaze mission occurred on 13 September 1944"

This may be wrong but the first flight of the F8F prototype was 21 August 1944. The Kamakaze threat may have sped up development and production a bit but had darn little to do with the initial concept or even much of the finished product as it was pretty well finalized by the time there was a Kamikaze threat.

The Firefly F1 could climb to 20k ft in 12.4 minutes with normal climb power versus 12.6 minutes for the F4F-4 with military power. However naval combat typically took place well under 20k ft, and the Firefly has the edge here

Not much of one does it? and it gives up the high altitude area completely. Wildcats over Guadalcanal may have taken a while to climb to altitude but once there they were faster than the P-40s. And since the Japanese were not considerate enough to fly at the P-40s best altitudes it was up to the Wildcats.

Again, we have discussed the fact that FAA development priority took a huge hit due the FofF and BofB, so the fact the Fairey couldn't meet it's planned timetable is no surprise, but the fact is that the Firefly/Barracuda would have been a potent combo in 1942, if their planned develop and production schedule could have been met.

And if the Jumo 222 had actually worked or closer to home if the Rolls_Royce Vulture had worked? Yes development and production were pushed back but the Griffon engine didn't hit it's predicted numbers until sometime 1944? The 1943 engines did not meet the anticipated power levels. How much delay was there in the Griffon? 9 months or 12 months or 18 months or more?

The American combo of F4Us, SB2C and TBFs would have been a very potent combo in 1942 IF the Navy and Chance Vought hadn't taken 21 months to a a second Corsair flying ( P&W having trouble with the engine?) and IF the SB2C had not been a combination of the Botha and Firebrand rolled into one.

It proves that the Firefly concept was a valid one, and it produced a high performance strike fighter that went on to see front line combat in Korea.

It "proves" nothing of the sort. Lots of aircraft (and other weapons) were used in Korea simply because they were available (on hand), not because they were the best suited for the job.

And "mud moving" in Korea wasn't that demanding of high performance. Danger from ground fire was certainly present but the number of UN attack aircraft that were "intercepted" by North Korean or Chinese planes may have been rather small.

Some of the Firefly's post war development was as an anti-submarine plane. As was the Avenger, a role that little to do with either of their original purposes. So bragging about how long either one served "AFTER" the war in roles other than fighter or anti ship/bomber doesn't really reflect how good they were at their original role does it?

Yeah, 1943.

Yeah, 1943, The Firefly isn't released for operational duty until Oct 1943 ( and then with higher powered engines than the Griffon IIB) and has it's first engagement with the enemy in May of 1944. So not only Sea Spitfires but the Sea Fury were seen as the way to go Months before the Firefly ever fired it's guns in anger. Whatever the concept had been in 1940 and whatever validity it had in 1940/41 (like being able to find it's carrier in North Atlantic weather) it was gone by the time the first squadron went into action. Wither it was gone in 1942/ early 1943 might be subject to question but it was sure fading.

No, the "ensign eliminator" was faster, but not a better CV based aircraft.

that may be true but it rather misses the point, doesn't it. The Corsair may be harder to land, it may have more handling problems but in the air the 1943 version was a much better fighter plane than the 1946 Firefly. It has decent range and before the Firefly goes into action for the first time (let alone the MK IV version) the Corsair is not only skip bombing with 1000lbs bombs but dive bombing at up to 85 degrees. As fighter it not only is faster but climbs much better and has a much better ceiling. A few are also adapted as a radar equipped night fighter.
And if a -1 Corsair is better than a MK IV firefly where does that leave the MK I Firefly?

 

[Shortround6]

Why not FAA just kep t Sea Gladiators, they turned even better than Firefly, after all turning was the only aspect in which Firefly beat Corsair in aerial combat besides somewhat better firepower. But Firefly was slow and lazy climber when it arrived.

The F4U-1C provided the answer to the fire power problem if needed.

 

[Aozora]

First off, the Firefly was planned for 1942 (how many times to I have to say this?) and in 1942 it would have been more than competitive. However, in 1944 it needed a lot more HP to remain competitive.

Operational in 1942 - Purely hypothetical and not worth pursuing. Needed extra HP - see below...

However, and I'll say this again, the 2nd seat didn't create a performance penalty, as it was the requirement for large internal fuel capacity and a 2000lb bomb load that required a large aircraft,

??? Are you honestly saying that building in an extra cockpit didn't exact a performance penalty?? An extra crew member alone = at least 200 lb. Add cockpit, seat, armour etc, plus extra fuselage structure and larger wings = at least another 1,500 lbs. The Firefly was larger and heavier than it would have been had it required one cockpit and would have had a much better performance with the same power given by the Griffon.

Firefly internal fuel carried = 192 imp gal plus up to 180 imp gal external (2 x 90 gal drop tanks). P-51B/C = 153 imp gal plus a 71 imp gal fuselage tank (albeit the latter led to instability until part emptied) + 2 x 75 imp gal drop tanks (or 2x 125 gal ferry tanks).

Read the specifications and show us where a 2,000 lb bomb load was required:

N.8/39

superseded by 5/40/F

and the weight and external dimensions of the Firefly were very similar to other naval fighters with the same internal fuel capacity, firepower and bomb load.

This isn't to deny the abilities of Firefly aircrew, but a single seat fighter with comparable engine power, firepower and range would have been far more useful to the FAA in 1942. Again, the Firefly was larger and heavier than it needed to be because of that second cockpit.

The Firefly did fly a variety of missions in 44/45 and generally did quite well.

And it never really encountered decent fighter opposition - had the Firefly operated in the strategic and tactical situation imposed in SE Asia by the Japanese in 1942 it might not have fared nearly as well.

 

[RCAFson]

V
You have to remember that at the outbreak of war, the FAA was equipped with obsolescent aircraft by comparison to other carrier armed countries. Apart from the Skua, every other carrier type in the FAA was a biplane. By 1941 the Japanese did not have a single biplane type operating in a front line role on board their carriers. The decision to configure the Swordfish replacement as a biplane was again based on pre-war practise and did not take into account advances in technology abroad, nor the future needs of the FAA as evolving technology forced warfare to change. Just because the FAA did it that way, does not mean that was the most efficient way of doing things. Wartime experience taught the Admiralty that. Your statement that the Fulmar/Albacore compared well with foreign aircraft is pure nonsense. Both types were obsolescent when they entered service compared to their contemporaries; as has been demonstrated, the Fulmar was too slow as a fighter and the Nakajima B5N was widely regarded as the most advanced carrier based torpedo bomber when it entered service.

The USN was operating a biplane fighter and biplane DB in 1939 - most people think that the USN and IJN were operating their Dec 1941 aircraft from 1939 onward when both the IJN introduced new fighters and DBs in mid to late 1941 - just in time for the Pacific war. In 1939 the IJN was just introducing the B5N with a low powered engine that was probabaly barely operable from a CV, and their primary fighter was the fixed wing A5M, and the A6M was only introduced in numbers in 1941, paralleling the F4F.

In 1940 the Folding wing Fulmar was the best carrier borne fighter in service (Fulmar - A5M- F3F), and the Albacore was still better than the TBD, and the Albacore was an efficient DB as well.

The RN had a number of older carriers in service with very short flight decks, so aircraft with good STOL characteristics were a necessity, so a low powered monoplane TB was not an option,

sorry I didn't have time to respond to your entire post.

 

[nuuumannn]

sorry I didn't have time to respond to your entire post.

That's okay, no rush. Firstly, granted, the smaller carrier argument might stand if it were not for the fact that the RN operated Grumman Avengers, larger and heavier than Albacores, with a higher landing speed from escort carriers with far smaller decks than Furious and her half sisters, later in the war. More evidence the FAA's thinking was backward regarding the Albacore. Also, the IJN had the Aichi D3A in 1940, as well as the Nakajima B5N and Zero; all benchmarking carrier warfare. As for your statement about the Fulmar being the best carrier fighter in 1940 - not true by a long shot. The Mitsubishi Zero was the best carrier fighter in the world, bar none when it entered service around the same time as the Fulmar in 1940. Also, the F4F was a match for the Fulmar and my bets would be on the Grumman to whip its ample backside in a fight. Even the A5M would have given the Fulmar a run for its money; small and agile, a very under-rated little aeroplane.

You are missing the point though, despite your assertions. The FAA's policy of long range two-seat fighters was based on pre-war strategy. By 1940 they were outdated. No other carrier based air force operated them, even more evidence the FAA was barking up the wrong tree and the IJN's carrier based aircraft served as a warning of what to expect in the forthcoming war at sea.

 

[Juha]

The USN was operating a biplane fighter and biplane DB in 1939 - most people think that the USN and IJN were operating their Dec 1941 aircraft from 1939 onward when both the IJN introduced new fighters and DBs in mid to late 1941 - just in time for the Pacific war. In 1939 the IJN was just introducing the B5N with a low powered engine that was probabaly barely operable from a CV, and their primary fighter was the fixed wing A5M, and the A6M was only introduced in numbers in 1941, paralleling the F4F.

In 1940 the Folding wing Fulmar was the best carrier borne fighter in service (Fulmar - A5M- F3F), and the Albacore was still better than the TBD, and the Albacore was an efficient DB as well.

The RN had a number of older carriers in service with very short flight decks, so aircraft with good STOL characteristics were a necessity, so a low powered monoplane TB was not an option,

sorry I didn't have time to respond to your entire post.

Now Zero was accepted as a Carrier fighter by the end of July 1940 after it had passed its carrier tests, Kate had entered service as Carrier Attack Bomber in 1937 and even B5N2 in 1940 and even Val passed its carrier tests in 1940

 

[Shortround6]

It would help if we stayed with the facts instead of doing some flag waving.

"The USN was operating a biplane fighter and biplane DB in 1939"

Yes they were but then the RN was operating biplane fighters also. Key part here for both services is "operating" which does not mean that they were using those types exclusively. The US managed to sneak 10 monoplane fighters onto a carrier in Dec 1939. The Northrop BT-1 was aboard carriers in 1938, granted it was not a success but it lead to the SBD Dauntless which was in service (shore based) in 1940 with the first carrier deployment early in 1941. It also rather ignores the Vought Vindicator which was first used on a carrier in 1937.

" most people think that the USN and IJN were operating their Dec 1941 aircraft from 1939 onward when both the IJN introduced new fighters and DBs in mid to late 1941 - just in time for the Pacific war."

Partially answered above. The US Navy was looking for NEW dive bombers and torpedo bombers in 1939/40. They knew the existing ones were NOT the best that could be built.

"In 1940 the Folding wing Fulmar was the best carrier borne fighter in service (Fulmar - A5M- F3F)"

Now this is a loaded statement. Out of the 3 listed it may be the best, It may be the best folding wing Fighter, although the A5M folds only just enough to say so and teh F3F not at all but it rather ignores the F2A, in service in small numbers, and the fact that by Dec 1940, while they weren't on carriers, F4Fs were in service. It also rather ignores the fact that a number of F2As and F4Fs were sold or released to be sold to Finland, France, Belgium and England which delayed their more widespread use by the US Navy. A Wildcat in British service makes the types first kill claim Dec 25 1940.

"and the Albacore was still better than the TBD, and the Albacore was an efficient DB as well"

Still beating up on the TBD I see. What part of "out of production in 1939" aren't you understanding? The US Navy had no intention of ordering any more TBDs after 1938 and the order for 15 placed in 1938 was to make good on operational losses( crashes). The US Navy knew they wanted something better than the TBD before the Albacore made it's first flight.
I also like this quote from the Fleet air arm Archive; " The Albacore was retired before the Swordfish, and started to be replaced from 1942 by the Fairey Barracuda and Grumman Avenger." Which says something about a plane that was first went operational in April of 1940.

"The RN had a number of older carriers in service with very short flight decks, so aircraft with good STOL characteristics were a necessity, so a low powered monoplane TB was not an option,"

See the Vindicator mentioned above, not a torpedo bomber but the last squadron to issued it was training on the USS Charger ( 492ft long and 17 knots) before re-equipping with SBDs.

The TBD used an 825-850hp engine, Surely with 1060-1090hp available a usable monoplane could have been built? The Japanese B5N2 had 1000hp.

Buying aircraft in 1939-41 based on their suitability for operating from the HMS Argus doesn't seem particularly smart.

 

[RCAFson]

That's okay, no rush. Firstly, granted, the smaller carrier argument might stand if it were not for the fact that the RN operated Grumman Avengers, larger and heavier than Albacores, with a higher landing speed from escort carriers with far smaller decks than Furious and her half sisters, later in the war. More evidence the FAA's thinking was backward regarding the Albacore. Also, the IJN had the Aichi D3A in 1940, as well as the Nakajima B5N and Zero; all benchmarking carrier warfare. As for your statement about the Fulmar being the best carrier fighter in 1940 - not true by a long shot. The Mitsubishi Zero was the best carrier fighter in the world, bar none when it entered service around the same time as the Fulmar in 1940. Also, the F4F was a match for the Fulmar and my bets would be on the Grumman to whip its ample backside in a fight. Even the A5M would have given the Fulmar a run for its money; small and agile, a very under-rated little aeroplane.

You are missing the point though, despite your assertions. The FAA's policy of long range two-seat fighters was based on pre-war strategy. By 1940 they were outdated. No other carrier based air force operated them, even more evidence the FAA was barking up the wrong tree and the IJN's carrier based aircraft served as a warning of what to expect in the forthcoming war at sea.

The Avenger had 1700hp and didn't appear in USN CV service until Aug 1942.

The first 65 Zeros had fixed wings and were not carrier capable. A total 328 in service by Dec 1941 including 228 carrier capable with folding wing tips. Almost no CV capable Zeros in 1940. A5M4 still in service on all CVLs in Dec 1941 and was in production until 1940.

Total D3A1 Val production was 430 by Aug 1942. Production of biplane D1a2 ended in 1940.
126 CV based + 68 land based D3A1 by Dec 1941 - almost none in service in 1940.

The Zero, Val and Kate had no armour and no self sealing tanks - this allowed them to achieve a very light weight and use low powered engines, but this would have been unacceptable to the RN (and USN) after 1940. None of the IJN aircraft would have been approved for RN CV service even if the IJN gave them away.

The F4F-3 didn't enter USN carrier service until early 1941 and the Martlet was not in RN CV service until Sept 1941 (early models were not carrier capable for a variety of reasons) and of course folding wing F4F/Martlets don't appear until 1942. The HSH predated the Martlet into RN CV service.

 

[RCAFson]

It would help if we stayed with the facts instead of doing some flag waving.

"The USN was operating a biplane fighter and biplane DB in 1939"

Yes they were but then the RN was operating biplane fighters also. Key part here for both services is "operating" which does not mean that they were using those types exclusively. The US managed to sneak 10 monoplane fighters onto a carrier in Dec 1939. The Northrop BT-1 was aboard carriers in 1938, granted it was not a success but it lead to the SBD Dauntless which was in service (shore based) in 1940 with the first carrier deployment early in 1941. It also rather ignores the Vought Vindicator which was first used on a carrier in 1937.

" most people think that the USN and IJN were operating their Dec 1941 aircraft from 1939 onward when both the IJN introduced new fighters and DBs in mid to late 1941 - just in time for the Pacific war."

Partially answered above. The US Navy was looking for NEW dive bombers and torpedo bombers in 1939/40. They knew the existing ones were NOT the best that could be built.

"In 1940 the Folding wing Fulmar was the best carrier borne fighter in service (Fulmar - A5M- F3F)"

Now this is a loaded statement. Out of the 3 listed it may be the best, It may be the best folding wing Fighter, although the A5M folds only just enough to say so and teh F3F not at all but it rather ignores the F2A, in service in small numbers, and the fact that by Dec 1940, while they weren't on carriers, F4Fs were in service. It also rather ignores the fact that a number of F2As and F4Fs were sold or released to be sold to Finland, France, Belgium and England which delayed their more widespread use by the US Navy. A Wildcat in British service makes the types first kill claim Dec 25 1940.

"and the Albacore was still better than the TBD, and the Albacore was an efficient DB as well"

Still beating up on the TBD I see. What part of "out of production in 1939" aren't you understanding? The US Navy had no intention of ordering any more TBDs after 1938 and the order for 15 placed in 1938 was to make good on operational losses( crashes). The US Navy knew they wanted something better than the TBD before the Albacore made it's first flight.
I also like this quote from the Fleet air arm Archive; " The Albacore was retired before the Swordfish, and started to be replaced from 1942 by the Fairey Barracuda and Grumman Avenger." Which says something about a plane that was first went operational in April of 1940.

"The RN had a number of older carriers in service with very short flight decks, so aircraft with good STOL characteristics were a necessity, so a low powered monoplane TB was not an option,"

See the Vindicator mentioned above, not a torpedo bomber but the last squadron to issued it was training on the USS Charger ( 492ft long and 17 knots) before re-equipping with SBDs.

The TBD used an 825-850hp engine, Surely with 1060-1090hp available a usable monoplane could have been built? The Japanese B5N2 had 1000hp.

Buying aircraft in 1939-41 based on their suitability for operating from the HMS Argus doesn't seem particularly smart.

So basically, as I stated earlier the USN was transitioning to new types with that transition still only partially complete by June 1942.

The Albacore went out of production in 1942 to free up factory space for Barracuda production. The Swordfish continued in production, mainly at Blackburn, because it had been modded into a dedicated ASW aircraft, but both were in use until 1945

In 1939 the RN had 6 CVs and CVLs in service with short flight decks (G-C-F-E-H-A), and they all needed an aircraft that could combine TB/DB/ASW/Recon into a single aircraft and only the Swordfish/Albacore could do this.